Ranchers Pipe & Steel Corporation v. Ohio Security Insurance Company et al
Filing
52
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RANCHERS PIPE & STEEL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 17-CV-192-CVE-FHM
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, and LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, [Dkt.
40], is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has
been fully briefed, [Dkt. 40, 43, 47], and is ripe for decision.
Defendants issued an insurance policy to insure Plaintiff’s roof. Plaintiff filed a claim
for damage to the roof. Coverage for the damage was denied. Plaintiff filed this case
alleging breach of contract and bad faith by both defendants.
Plaintiff served
interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Defendant Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual).
Liberty Mutual posed objections to all of the
discovery requests and refused to provide substantive responses. Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling Liberty Mutual to provide substantive responses to the discovery.1
Primarily, Liberty Mutual asserts that discovery from Liberty Mutual is improper
because Liberty Mutual claims it did not issue the policy at issue and was not responsible
for handling Plaintiff’s insurance claim. Liberty Mutual also asserts that discovery is not
1
Plaintiff’s construction of relevancy for discovery, as being “if there is any possibility that the
information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action,” [Dkt. 40, p. 5], relies on case law
that does not accurately state the scope of discovery in federal court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
appropriate for the further reason that Plaintiff has not asserted any veil piercing or alter
ego allegations. At this stage of the proceedings no determination is being made as to
whether Liberty Mutual (or any party) is, or is not, liable. The question is whether Liberty
Mutual is required to answer Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Liberty Mutual’s assertions do
not exempt it from providing answers to reasonable discovery requests. Irrespective of
whether Liberty Mutual is eventually found to have any liability in this matter, from the
prominent presence of Liberty Mutual’s logo on the claim denial, [Dkt. 40-4], and the email
concerning an inspection of the subject roof Plaintiff received from a “Sr. Claims Specialist”
from the Southwest Region of Liberty Mutual Insurance that came from an email address
“@libertymutual.com,” [Dkt. 40-5], it is not unreasonable for Plaintiff to seek to find out what
involvement Liberty Mutual had in the issuance of the policy, in the adjustment of the claim,
and the relationship between Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual.
The court finds that, contrary to Liberty Mutual’s asserted objections, for the most
part, Plaintiff’s discovery requests are not vague or ambiguous nor are most of the requests
overly broad. Yet, Liberty Mutual posed those objections to every discovery request.
Liberty Mutual has made no showing that making a substantive response to the discovery
would be unduly burdensome. It is disingenuous to object that a request for production is
duplicative, when the request begins, “to the extent not already requested.” [Dkt. 40-1, pp.
8-10]. Except where otherwise indicated herein, the court finds that Liberty Mutual’s
objections to Plaintiff’s discovery are not well founded. Liberty Mutual is advised that
unsupported objections as provided in this case are not acceptable. They evince an
uncooperativeness that is contrary to the command that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are to be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties
2
to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Posing an objection that a discovery request is vague and ambiguous
when the question posed uses clear language or objecting that a request is overly broad
when it is not comes close to violating the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(1)(B) that
every objection be warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous legal argument and not
interposed for delay. In addition, because objections to the wording of a discovery request
are usually easily resolved by phone calls or meetings between counsel, the objection that
a discovery request is vague or ambiguous calls into question whether the required meet
and confer was conducted in good faith. Furthermore, Liberty Mutual’s responses are such
that it is not clear whether responsive material or information exists.
In general if Liberty Mutual has information that pertains to the subject roof or the
policy at issue and is the topic of a discovery request, that information must be produced.
If Liberty Mutual does not have documents or information responsive to a request Plaintiff
is entitled to a properly signed response from Liberty Mutual to that effect. Fed.R.Civ.P.
33(b). If all information responsive to a request has been provided to Plaintiff by Ohio
Security, Liberty Mutual may not simply declare the matter moot. Rather, Liberty Mutual
is required to provide a properly signed response that the information has been provided
by Ohio Security. Discussion of the individual discovery requests follows.
Underwriting Process
Request for Production Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 seek production of inspection
materials and communications that preceded the issuance of the policy. Understanding
that Liberty Mutual maintains it did not issue the policy, it is none-the-less required to
3
produce responsive documents if they exist and to advise if they do not. Liberty Mutual is
required to answer Interrogatories Nos 2 and 6.
Claims Process
This category of discovery involves Request for Production of Documents Nos 9-11,
13, and 15-18. Liberty Mutual is required to produce responsive documents, if any, for
Request Nos 9-11, and 16 or respond that it has no responsive documents.
Request No. 13 seeks production of “any and all written guidelines and/or claims
manuals regarding the process by which Liberty Mutual evaluates claims.” This request
is too broad in that it seeks any and all written guidelines and is not specific to the type of
claim involved in this case. The motion to compel is denied as to this request.
Request No. 15 seeks production of documents pertaining to compensation and
performance reviews of those claims personnel who were involved in the denial of Plaintiff’s
claims. The court fails to see how this information is relevant to the issues in this lawsuit.
The motion to compel is denied as to this request.
Request No. 17 asks for production of all training documents provided to employees
that indicate when an outside consulting firm should be used. The court finds that this
request is too broad and is not relevant to the issues in this lawsuit. The motion to compel
is denied as to this request.
Request No. 18 asks for production of “all documents identifying all outside firms or
organizations approved to assist in handling wind, hail, or roof claims within the State of
Oklahoma. This request for all documents is overly broad. The motion to compel is denied
as to this request.
4
This category of discovery also involves Interrogatory Nos 3-5 and 7-13. Liberty
Mutual is required to answer Interrogatory Nos 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 13.
Interrogatory No. 9 asks Liberty Mutual to describe in detail every factual basis in
support of coverage of Plaintiff’s claims. Under the circumstances of this case, Liberty
Mutual is not required to identify potential weaknesses in its own case. The motion to
compel is denied as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 11 asks Liberty Mutual to “list the number of claims” filed by
policyholders for property damage caused by the weather events on March 25, 2015, May
6, 2015, and May 16, 2015 within a 5 mile radius of the subject property. Interrogatory No.
12 asks Liberty Mutual to “list the number of claims” paid for property damage identified in
the Interrogatory No. 12. These interrogatories do not seek relevant information. The
motion to compel is denied as to these interrogatories.
Relationship Between Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual
Request for Production No. 14 asks for production of any agreements between
Liberty Mutual and Ohio Security, including but not limited to “Management Services
Agreements.” While exploration of the relationship and possible division of labor between
Liberty Mutual and Ohio Security is a relevant area for inquiry, the request for “any
agreements” is overly broad. The motion to compel is denied as to this request without
prejudice to making a more narrow focused request or seeking discovery by other means
such as by 30(b)(6) deposition.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, [Dkt.
40], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set out herein.
5
SO ORDERED this 15th day of March, 2018.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?